Attached Thumbnails

For the last four or five decades, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased (gasp!) at a rate of approximately 1.3 parts per MILLION volume (ppmv).

Today, that concentration is slightly over 400 ppmv.

Compare this with atmospheric water vapor which is roughly 15,000 ppmv.

Not only is water vapor THE dominant greenhouse gas from a quantitative point of view, but qualitatively, water vapor absorbs more light energy than carbon dioxide, ceteris paribus.

To counter this science that so infuriates climate change proponents, they have created a lexicon of confusion.

"Oh water vapor falls out as rain but carbon dioxide - whoa, that stays up there for decades."

Irrelevant. A molecule is a molecule, old or new.

"Forcing!"

Oh please. Stop it.

Wrong, but kudos for the IR spectrum. This nicely illustrates how CO2 absorbs at several wavelength regions that are transparent to water. So it thereby closes off the windows for radiating heat into space that water leaves open. Furthermore, water vapour concentration increases if the temperature goes up, due to the extra evaporation that takes place. So any extra increase in temperature due to CO2 closing the window is amplified by the water vapour effect. These are some of the reasons why there is an almost unanimous view in science that CO2 does in fact lead to climate change.

The correlation between global mean temperature and CO2 concentration over the last 150yrs corroborates the hypothesis:

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global
Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA,
NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global
average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate
modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this
research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of
Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST
data to be a valid representation of reality.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment
issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported
historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of
GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend
over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by
systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature
pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data
measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of
GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best
documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere
as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive
global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and
urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having
cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data
sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude oftheir historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclicaltemperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published andcredible U.S. and other temperature data.Thus, it is impossible toconclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent yearshave been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record settingwarming. (Bold emphasis added)
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for
EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these
research findings.

You realize that Fred Singer is the same guy who used to work for tobacco companies to claim that smoking wasn't dangerous, right? He made the tobacco companies millions by sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt over the research linking smoking and lung cancer. He's a scientist for hire, and is willing to take any position he is paid to take.

You realize that Fred Singer is the same guy who used to work for tobacco companies to claim that smoking wasn't dangerous, right? He made the tobacco companies millions by sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt over the research linking smoking and lung cancer. He's a scientist for hire, and is willing to take any position he is paid to take.

So you claim that WHILE sea temperatures increase, CO2 concentration also increases, contradicting the logarithmic solubility graph of CO2 in water.

I never mentioned Fred Singer. YOU did. Professor Singer is a climate scientist. How he could be involved in cigarettes and lung cancer you have yet to explain and verify. But people who are "willing to take any position" they are paid to take certainly include all the *researchers* for global warming and climate change. To pretend that bias for hire is strictly one-sided, and in the OTHER side is the height of hypocrisy, particularly given the orders of magnitude more money poured into global warmists' hands by federal agencies, and environmental hypocrites who preach conservation and then sell world tours everywhere, every single day.

Take National Geographic Society, please. It's climate change/ global warming in every issue, and on every TV program. Then they send out 130 page advertisements with global tours all around the world at great expense, INCLUDING "Around the World by Private Jet."

Wrong, but kudos for the IR spectrum. This nicely illustrates how CO2 absorbs at several wavelength regions that are transparent to water. So it thereby closes off the windows for radiating heat into space that water leaves open. Furthermore, water vapour concentration increases if the temperature goes up, due to the extra evaporation that takes place. So any extra increase in temperature due to CO2 closing the window is amplified by the water vapour effect. These are some of the reasons why there is an almost unanimous view in science that CO2 does in fact lead to climate change.

The correlation between global mean temperature and CO2 concentration over the last 150yrs corroborates the hypothesis:

There is no serious doubt about it any longer. Those who refuse to acknowledge at least the likelihood that it is a real effect have, logically, to be conspiracy theorists.

The only problem is that Co2 levels in the jurrasic period would have been over 5 times greater than modern "skyrocketing" Co2 levels. If you look at the reconstructed georecord from ice coring we are currently coming out of the lowest atmospheric carbon levels in literally MILLIONS of years. Take a look at the atmos data vs plotted geo temp. I'm gonna let you look it up yerself so you're more likely to crack the "repeated till it becomes obvious truth" effect you're displaying. Carbon scare is 100% a setup for a tax scam, has been since the early 90's.

There is no serious doubt about it any longer. Those who refuse to acknowledge at least the likelihood that it is not a verystrong effect have, logically, to be conspiracy theorists.

The only problem is that Co2 levels in the jurrasic period would have been over 5 times greater than modern "skyrocketing" Co2 levels. If you look at the reconstructed georecord from ice coring we are currently coming out of the lowest atmospheric carbon levels in literally MILLIONS of years. Take a look at the atmos data vs plotted geo temp. I'm gonna let you look it up yerself so you're more likely to crack the "repeated till it becomes obvious truth" effect you're displaying. Carbon scare is 100% a setup for a tax scam, has been since the early 90's.

There is no serious doubt about it any longer. Those who refuse to acknowledge at least the likelihood that it is not a verystrong effect have, logically, to be conspiracy theorists.

So what? There have of course been higher levels of CO2, oxygen, and what have you, at different times. The issue for us today is the rapid rate of change and the consequent disruption of the world before it has any chance to adjust through natural processes. In the past, such changes took place gradually over millions of years. We are compressing these changes into a couple of centuries. We face inundations, desertification and violent weather, causing billions of dollars of insurance claims, wars over water supply, mass migrations etc. In other words practical and highly damaging disruption to human societies, not to mention unpredictable effects on the wider ecosystem.

It may surprise you to know the dinosaurs didn't have to worry about that sort of thing.

If you really think the whole of climate science is some sort of conspiracy to profit from carbon credits, you don't have a grasp of reality.

. Carbon scare is 100% a setup for a tax scam, has been since the early 90's.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015

“It must be understood that what is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

Here is the context:

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

What he is saying is that there is no getting away from the fact that policy responses to climate change will inevitably be major exercises in redistributing wealth and altering global economics, given that so much is tied up with energy. That's obviously true.

What he did not say, or intend to imply, was that the intent behind climate science is to set up a (fraudulent) theory in order to engineer wealth redistribution. Obviously.

How much of the cost in insurance claims is a result of too much development in vulnerable areas? How much of these costs are also simply a result of just increased building? When my parents starting farming, my hometown was a rural town, and now there are expensive houses all over the neighborhood.

there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

As they fly from one conference to another to another and then off to an "eco-tour" vacation, burning tons of fossil fuels they so hypocritically say must not be burned.

Keep buying their eco-hypocrisy.

Incidentally, the Unabomber, one of America's premier eco-freaks, had a well worn copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance in his rathole cabin where he fabricated package bombs to kill those he didn't like.

The FBI spent $50,000,000 to catch the lousy Leftist professor and academic who taught mathematics at UC Berkeley.

Interestingly, this thread has now thrown up three different conspiracy theories to account for why climate science is allegedly a scam:

1) The climate scientists all either stand to gain from, or are employed by those who stand to gain from, carbon taxes,

2) The climate scientists are all conniving at keeping a bogus science going so as to benefit from government research funding,

3) It is a left wing political conspiracy (Illuminati? Lizard people?), for some reason signed up to by almost all climate scientists, to redistribute wealth in some undefined way, to achieve some unstated goal.

It is worthwhile identifying these various conspiracy theories, because climate change refuseniks need to advocate some kind of conspiracy theory to make sense of their own positions on the issue, given the high degree of consensus in the science community.